JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. A civil suit stood filed by the plaintiff/petitioner herein (for short the “plaintiff”) vis-à-vis the defendant/respondent herein (for short the “defendant”) qua the latter standing permanently restrained from causing any sort of interference upon the suit land. 2. During the pendency of the suit aforesaid, an application constituted under the provisions of Order 7 Rule 14 readwith Section 151 CPC stood preferred by the plaintiff before the learned trial Court wherein he sought a relief qua the learned trial Court permitting him to produce/adduce the following documents:- (a) Statement of the parties as well as the certified copy of the judgment of learned Additional District Judge, Mandi camp at Karsog in Civil Appeal No. 49/99 of 4.3.2002; (b) Spot map. 3. The documents aforesaid as stood concerted by the plaintiff to be, with the leave of the Court, produced therebefore, had not come to be appended alongwith the plaint nor they stood depicted in the list of documents relied upon by the plaintiff, whereupon their production before the learned trial Court was statutorily barred, for overcoming effect whereof, the plaintiff under the aforesaid motion made therebefore sought the apposite leave of the learned trial Court, to hence adduce/produce them therebefore, their existence/adduction on record being just and essential for deciding the controversy engaging the parties at lis. 4. The learned trial Court dismissed the application aforesaid, merely on anvil of the defendant admitting the relevant communications in respect thereto made in the application, thereupon it concluded qua there being no necessity to enjoin the plaintiff to prove the aforesaid documents. 4. The learned trial Court dismissed the application aforesaid, merely on anvil of the defendant admitting the relevant communications in respect thereto made in the application, thereupon it concluded qua there being no necessity to enjoin the plaintiff to prove the aforesaid documents. However, the aforesaid reason recorded by the learned trial Court for hence dismissing the application aforesaid, is perse bereft of any vigor, significantly when the aforesaid documents concerted by the plaintiff, to with the leave of the learned trial Court, hence produced therebefore, prima-facie may have clinched the controversy, conspicuously when the statement made earlier by the defendant in capacity of his protecting the interest(s) in the previous litigation of his minor son, held explicit communications therein qua the defendant accepting the factum of the plaintiff holding absolute title as owner thereof also with defendant Het Ram earlier, in his statement made during the pendency of the appeal before the learned District Judge, undertaking to not interfere in any manner upon Khasra No. 365, besides his undertaking therein not to erect any construction thereupon, in sequel, whereto the learned Additional District Judge recorded its pronouncement. In aftermath dehors the defendant accepting the earlier communications made by him in the earlier lis whereupon the learned Appellate Court anvilled its verdict yet their production/adduction into evidence with the apposite leave of the learned trial Court hence was imperative, for hence firmly clinching the controversy significantly when it pertained to khasra No. 365, number whereof was alike the contentious khasra number, in an earlier lis inter-se almost pari materia contestants, imperatively when they constitute the best evidence also hold superior probative sinew vis-à-vis relevant admission(s) in the apposite pleadings, for thereupon facilitating the ld. trial Judge to record a firm conclusion qua the validity of the claim reared by the plaintiff, in his suit qua suit khasra No. 365. Consequently, refusal of relief asked for in the application, on anvil of the defendant purportedly admitting the relevant facts held therewithin, was not sufficient to preclude the plaintiff, to tender them into evidence nor it was sagacious for the learned trial Court to baulk their production/adduction therebefore. In view of the above, there is merit in the petition, the same is allowed. Impugned order stands quashed and set aside. All the pending applications stand disposed of accordingly. The parties are directed to appear before the learned trial Court on 27.4.2017.